PerformanceRiskValuationProfitabilityCashflowLiquidityESGRevenue & Geographic ExposureForecastFinancial GrowthIncome GrowthCashflow GrowthBalance Sheet Growth
226.29 - 230.79
161.38 - 242.52
38.50M / 42.21M (Avg.)
34.73 | 6.57
Shows the trajectory of a company's cash-generation capacity. Consistent growth in operating and free cash flow suggests a robust, self-funding business model—crucial for value investors seeking undervalued, cash-rich opportunities.
-21.33%
Both yoy net incomes decline, with VIPS at -20.59%. Martin Whitman would view it as a broader sector or cyclical slump hitting profits.
12.99%
D&A growth of 12.99% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost difference that must be justified by expansions.
-221.43%
Negative yoy deferred tax while VIPS stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would consider near-term tax obligations but a possible advantage if competitor's deferrals become a burden later.
-14.10%
Both cut yoy SBC, with VIPS at -34.96%. Martin Whitman would view it as an industry shift to reduce stock-based pay or a sign of reduced expansions.
-160.19%
Negative yoy working capital usage while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see more free cash if revenue remains unaffected, giving a short-term advantage.
151.54%
AR growth of 151.54% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild difference in credit approach that could matter for cash flow.
204.90%
Inventory growth of 204.90% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a moderate build that must match future sales to avoid risk.
-184.51%
Negative yoy AP while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see quicker payments or less reliance on trade credit than competitor, unless expansions are hindered.
-77.36%
Negative yoy usage while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a short-term advantage in freeing up capital unless competitor invests effectively in these lines.
28.79%
Well above VIPS's 23.19%. Michael Burry would worry about large intangible write-downs or revaluation gains overshadowing real performance.
-137.24%
Negative yoy CFO while VIPS is 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would see a disadvantage in operational cash generation vs. competitor.
46.08%
CapEx growth of 46.08% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz would see a mild cost burden that must yield returns in future revenue or margins.
82.56%
Acquisition growth of 82.56% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild outflow that must deliver synergy to justify the difference.
12.72%
Purchases growth of 12.72% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in portfolio building that might matter for returns.
15.44%
Liquidation growth of 15.44% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a mild difference in monetizing portfolio items that must be justified by market valuations.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
59.62%
We expand invests by 59.62% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a moderate outflow that must be justified by returns vs. competitor’s stable approach.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
No Data
No Data available this quarter, please select a different quarter.
100.00%
Buyback growth of 100.00% while VIPS is zero at 0.00%. Bruce Berkowitz sees a modest per-share advantage that might accumulate if the stock is below intrinsic value.